Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis

48Citations
Citations of this article
208Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses generally provide the best evidence for medical research. Authors are recommended to use flow diagrams to present the review process, allowing for better understanding among readers. However, no studies as of yet have assessed the quality of flow diagrams in systematic review/meta-analyses. Our study aims to evaluate the quality of systematic review/meta-analyses over a period of ten years, by assessing the quality of the flow diagrams, and the correlation to the methodological quality. Two hundred articles of “systematic review” and/or “meta-analysis” from January 2004 to August 2015 were randomly retrieved in Pubmed to be assessed for the flow diagram and methodological qualities. The flow diagrams were evaluated using a 16-grade scale corresponding to the four stages of PRISMA flow diagram. It composes four parts: Identification, Screening, Eligibility and Inclusion. Of the 200 articles screened, 154 articles were included and were assessed with AMSTAR checklist. Among them, 78 articles (50.6%) had the flow diagram. Over ten years, the proportion of papers with flow diagram available had been increasing significantly with regression coefficient beta = 5.649 (p = 0.002). However, the improvement in quality of the flow diagram increased slightly but not significantly (regression coefficient beta = 0.177, p = 0.133). Our analysis showed high variation in the proportion of articles that reported flow diagram components. The lowest proportions were 1% for reporting methods of duplicates removal in screening phase, followed by 6% for manual search in identification phase, 22% for number of studies for each specific/subgroup analysis, 27% for number of articles retrieved from each database, and 31% for number of studies included in

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53753Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

37066Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

22667Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis

1154Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus-based development

237Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Directions in abusive language training data, a systematic review: Garbage in, garbage out

193Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vu-Ngoc, H., Elawady, S. S., Mehyar, G. M., Abdelhamid, A. H., Mattar, O. M., Halhouli, O., … Huy, N. T. (2018). Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195955

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 44

71%

Researcher 9

15%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

10%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 21

41%

Medicine and Dentistry 15

29%

Engineering 8

16%

Psychology 7

14%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 338

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free